The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd

[2022] FWC 1682

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.437—Protected action

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
v

Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd

(B2022/619)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI

SYDNEY, 30 JUNE 2022

Proposed protected action ballot of employees of Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd

This is an application by the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association (Applicant) made under s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) for a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd (Respondent).

On 30 June 2022, the Fair Work Commission was advised that the Respondent did not oppose the application.

In the circumstances, I have decided to determine the matter on the papers without holding a hearing.

On the basis of the material before me, including the statutory declaration of Stephen Purvinas of the Applicant declared on 28 June 2022, setting out the steps taken by it in bargaining with the Respondent and that it has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach agreement with the Respondent, I am satisfied that there is a notification time in relation to the proposed agreement and that the requirements in s.443(1) of the Act have been met.

An Order has been separately issued in PR743231.

VICE PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association filed an application under section 437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a protected action ballot order concerning specific employees of Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd. The matter was heard and determined by Vice President Catanzariti of the Fair Work Commission on 30 June 2022. Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd did not oppose the application, allowing the Commission to decide the matter based on the submitted documents without the need for a hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the Association had satisfied the requirements to conduct a protected action ballot. This included verifying that there was a notification period for the proposed agreement and ensuring the Association had genuinely attempted to reach an agreement with Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd. The Commission examined the statutory declaration provided by Stephen Purvinas of the Association, which detailed the steps taken in bargaining with the Respondent and the ongoing efforts to reach an agreement.

Vice President Catanzariti concluded that the Association had fulfilled the statutory requirements for a protected action ballot. The declaration and the evidence presented demonstrated that the Association had been genuinely attempting to negotiate with Network Turbine Solutions Pty Ltd. Consequently, the Commission found that the notification period had been met, and the conditions for a ballot under section 443(1) of the Fair Work Act were satisfied. An Order was subsequently issued in PR743231.

This decision underscores the Fair Work Commission's role in facilitating fair workplace practices and ensuring that the rights of employees and employers are upheld in the bargaining process. The Commission's determination was based on the evidence provided, and it allowed the Association to proceed with the protected action ballot as requested.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established